Affirmative action

Zugzwang

There's a supreme court case on it's way about this in the US (Fischer v UT) so I thought it would be a good thing to discuss here.

I am opposed to affirmative action; for it to be necessary there would have to be an inherent difference between people of different races (and beyond skin color this is clearly not the case), but the rationale seems to be that because many members of ethnic minorities are subject to hard, normally economic, situations there ought to be a system like this to benefit them. A system that benefited people based on their economic means could be a reasonable policy, however one that benefits people solely on race is not.

Melchior

You do realise that white privilege is about more than just money? Even ethnic minorities (and women) from wealthy families are at disadvantage because of their race. How would AA on the basis of socioeconomic status even work? Like if you're from a family that earns X amount of income you're covered by it? That would give a lot of white, working class males a massive advantage.

Zugzwang

You do realise that white privilege is about more than just money? Even ethnic minorities (and women) from wealthy families are at disadvantage because of their race. How would AA on the basis of socioeconomic status even work? Like if you're from a family that earns X amount of income you're covered by it? That would give a lot of white, working class males a massive advantage.

It would work the same way affirmative action works now, just with a different preferred group. The same benefits allotted currently would just be allotted on different grounds.

I acknowledge that there are reasons ethnic minorities face greater difficulty in achieving the same levels of success other than economic status. Racism comes to mind, and the way to stop racism is not to have a law on the books that discriminates on people on the basis of race. This is an area where progress is being made, and affirmative action only slows this progress by creating a system where people of certain races benefit and members of others are harmed.

Melchior

It's not about combating "racism" as such. People have a genuine preference for hiring white people. It's subconscious. Also hwo do we define this "preferred group"? Because it sounds like it will allot benefits to people aren't facing any particular disadvantage.

Typhus

Affrimative Action is an easy answer to a complex question. It treats individual symptoms of a wider disease and as such cannot be considered to be extreme enough to do anything about racism. Indeed, the very necessity for Affirmative Action typecasts minorities as in need of a leg-up, perpetuating the myth that said minorities are workshy, unintelligent and have to be fed scraps from the table of their benevolent white masters.

Likewise, acknowledging that there is racism, acknowledging the history of racism and slavery and the wounds this has left in Western civilisation is deeply, horribly damaging to white people. Tell me, if a white man has a son - an innocent, blameless baby boy - how is that boy to react to being told that, through no fault of his own, he is afforded special privileges because he is white? How is he supposed to feel when being confronted by angry, racist people who want him to be ashamed of the colour of his skin? That boy never enslaved anyone, that boy never flogged anyone or crammed women and children into a ship to be sold like cattle, yet his skin colour makes him guilty. If that thought doesn't fill you with a sense of disgust, I simply don't know what to say.

Make no mistake, those who speak of 'white privilege' are racist. Where do they get the right to tar an entire ethnic group as being better off? To trivialise the suffering of the disabled and mentally ill and abused because they happen to be white? If you believe that my life is easier because I'm white, then you are behaving like the classical bigot who is judging me purely on the colour of my skin. This is not the intention of those who discuss these issues, but it is the end result. Racist rhetoric masquerading as concern for the disadvantaged.

The attempts to right ancient wrongs have merely made the problem worse, and the reason is that no law, no government program can wipe away the past. And the past will forever allow minorities to be painted as slaves and dependents and allow whites to be typecast as oppressors and profiteers of slavery. Each new generation will be confronted with the same facts, the same easy stereotypes, the same shame and guilt and anger, and nothing will ever change.Seen in this light, Affirmative Action is nothing but a scrap of bandage thrown onto a slit throat.

The solution to the problem of racism is to change the past, slowly alter history so that the negative aspects are phased out and eventually edited out of existence. Teach children history as it should have been instead of how it was. If humans insist on using the past to determine their future, we must accept this and become masters of that past, molding it and changing it to suit the best interests of mankind as a whole.I think that is the only possible way to create a world in which nothing like Affirmative Action would be necessary.

Melchior

You are afforded white privilege. Maybe you're also poor, physically and mentally disabled or face other societal hurdles. But you are still afforded privilege because you are white. No matter what you do in your life, you can always expect to be surrounded by members of your own race. No matter what facet of society you observe you can see members of your race widely represented. When you learn about the history of your country, your learning about the history of your race. You know that the state you live in exists for the benefit of your race and that its flag exists to represent them. You know that no matter what you do, you won't face discrimination based on your race.

Aside from historical revisionism being intrinsically bad (you can't understand your society if you have literally been lied to about its history) white privilege isn't just historical. It's also economic (something AA seeks to rectify) but can also be as simple as people thinking whites are more capable, because they see white people succeeding more. Sometimes people subconsciously think ethnic minorities won't fit in at a university campus or a work place, because everybody there is white.

I'm not sure why you think it's so damaging to be honest with children about our society's past. Down here, we are incredibly forthright with kids about Australia's history. What we learn in primary school is basically "Britain was really unequal and people couldn't feed their families but rich people didn't want them stealing bread so we shipped them all off down here when they got caught. Then more people moved here and we pushed out the natives." Kids don't typically grow up hating themselves because they're white, and the few that do get affected by white guilt at least have a proper historical perspective.

El Diablo

no but seriously.affirmative action (at least in the United States) is a necessity until racism and sexism have been stamped out. it's pretty much as simple as that. because affirmative action is less about direct racism and more about indirect or latent racism, which means that ultimately it's mostly about classism.

a lot of the "power" of modern racism is rooted in socioeconomic advantages that are inherent within the system for white folks.as of 2013, white people of any social class still have a slightly easier life in America than ethnic minorities of the same class. generally speaking. it's inherent in education, finance, etc.

prove that the advantage has been nullified and we can begin to talk about dismantling affirmative action.

Zugzwang

affirmative action (at least in the United States) is a necessity until racism and sexism have been stamped out

This will never happen

QUOTE

lot of the "power" of modern racism is rooted in socioeconomic advantages that are inherent within the system for white folks.

They are not inherent, there are plenty of white people without any socioeconomic advantages. You're confusing correlation and causation; a lot of white people tend to be wealthy but being white does not cause them to be wealthy.

QUOTE

prove that the advantage has been nullified and we can begin to talk about dismantling affirmative action.

Melchior seems to be arguing the same thing (please correct me if this actually isn't the case, I hate strawmanning people) and I acknowledge that there is a subconscious bias towards preferring someone of your own race. However this subconscious bias is not something so strong that it can't be negated with something as simple as a job interview. The fact is, as society progresses, and people become more consciously accepting, they gradually become more unconsciously accepting as well. With a law that blatantly separates people on the basis of race you're furthering a conscious bias which needs to be combated to negate the unconscious one as well.

El Diablo

there are plenty of white people without any socioeconomic advantages.

apparently you don't understand what I'm getting at.

most civil institutions treat white people differently than other racial minorities. and by "differently" I mean "better" or with more preferential treatment. historically this goes for most banks and financial institutions especially when it comes to loans and interest rates. all white people benefit from this and other small, unspoken, unwritten advantages. some white people may never use these advantages but it doesn't mean they aren't there.

QUOTE

a lot of white people tend to be wealthy but being white does not cause them to be wealthy.

I never said that it did...

QUOTE

However this subconscious bias is not something so strong that it can't be negated with something as simple as a job interview.

what?the racial bias creeps into job interviews just like it creeps into anything else.

QUOTE

you're furthering a conscious bias which needs to be combated to negate the unconscious one as well.

you call it furthering a bias.I call it furthering equal protection.

again; show me that latent racism has dried up and I'll agree that affirmative action can be dismantled.

Irviding

Why do we have to target people by race though? Why can't we have affirmative action based on socioeconomic need? In that case you are still going to be assisting the disproportionately poor minorities but also you will assist those who are plain old white folks and have the same problems.

I just don't understand why we can't say ANYONE who comes from a family making less than 30,000 a year should get extra government help, not just black people should get extra government help. I am best friends with a kid I know all the way back from high school who is black and whose father has a range rover and who was bought a brand new Cadillac when he was 17 for his first car, yet still got affirmative action benefits when applying for college and scholarships. He sure as hell didn't need any scholarships... but the white kid whose family is making a ton less than his did got nothing of the such. What about looking at affirmative action based on area? County A has a significantly lower median income than county B, so students coming from county A should get some extra help compared with students from county B.

This isn't 1960 anymore. It's time to deal with the problem and try to offer EVERYONE who is disadvantaged some special benefits to help lift them out of poverty, not just minorities.

Zugzwang

Why do we have to target people by race though? Why can't we have affirmative action based on socioeconomic need? In that case you are still going to be assisting the disproportionately poor minorities but also you will assist those who are plain old white folks and have the same problems.

I just don't understand why we can't say ANYONE who comes from a family making less than 30,000 a year should get extra government help, not just black people should get extra government help. I am best friends with a kid I know all the way back from high school who is black and whose father has a range rover and who was bought a brand new Cadillac when he was 17 for his first car, yet still got affirmative action benefits when applying for college and scholarships. He sure as hell didn't need any scholarships... but the white kid whose family is making a ton less than his did got nothing of the such. What about looking at affirmative action based on area? County A has a significantly lower median income than county B, so students coming from county A should get some extra help compared with students from county B.

This isn't 1960 anymore. It's time to deal with the problem and try to offer EVERYONE who is disadvantaged some special benefits to help lift them out of poverty, not just minorities.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. There's overlap; there are poor white people and rich minorities. Affirmative action is imprecise.

E.A.B.

It's not about combating "racism" as such. People have a genuine preference for hiring white people. It's subconscious.

This is what I don't like about the racial debate, it gets into the ''subliminal racism'' aspect whereby we all become mind readers and KNOW that something is racist because we have a feeling that it is.

That's not a valid argument. I've talked with a few people that claim America is still a racist society, but their arguments hinge on their interpretation of events

Got passed up for something and a white person got chosen instead?

Racism.

It HAD to be racism and not a multitude of other factors.

Systematically, racism no longer exists as it isn't enforced by any legal statures. The only racism left is in people's minds, in their thoughts. And I'm perfectly fine with that, as people are entitled to their own thoughts. I'm not gonna arrest them for what they think. I'll simply choose not to agree. The only problem is if it gets into the courts and in hiring practices. But can you somehow regulate against that? Against people's thoughts and perceptions?

Is it unfair that a black male with dreadlocks is treated differently based on public perception? That you HAVE to wear a suit and tie to work and to interviews, even though that is evidence of absolutely nothing? These are all perception issues, and they are much better solved in the public opinion sphere, where people argue about these problems.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Jun 24 2013, 22:56)

You do realise that white privilege is about more than just money? Even ethnic minorities (and women) from wealthy families are at disadvantage because of their race. How would AA on the basis of socioeconomic status even work? Like if you're from a family that earns X amount of income you're covered by it? That would give a lot of white, working class males a massive advantage.

That would give white, working class males the same aid that any other person in the same situation gets.

And I'm all for that. There is no argument against giving people of different skin tones the same opportunities if they are in the same situation other than ''f*ck whitey he has it too good''. The only argument against is is that we need to throw several white people under the boss to have the same percentage of whites and blacks living good, because that is totally fair and I feel totally guilty for my people's past.

Anyway, as for affirmative action, I am completely against it. I've never needed it because I've always performed better than average anyway (check the flag under my profile pic). I'm somewhat of a libertarian, do you understand what a stupid and asinine idea it is to not allocate sources efficiently?

''Sir, test scores have shown that this white male performs well and that we should have him in our school to get the most out of what we will teach him, society will benefit''

''yeah, but he's not black, let the lower level black male in''

''but that's stupid, he isn't as qualified''

''yeah, but 'fairness' doesn't follow logic, it follows feelings''

The idea is that minorities need affirmative action because they can't perform as well...except asians who are minorities but also perform better than whites, which completely destroys the idea that ''minorities need a leg up'' but let's not let rationality get in the way of affirmative action.

But if someone like me fills in the quota then we don't need it, because if the quota is filled in by people of average or higher skill anyway then what is the need for affirmative action if there are people within the community that can perform well and get into the school? The only remaining argument is that people are still vehement racists that don't want minorities into their schools so we need to forcefully put in quotas.

With all that being said, let's keep in mind this is all with a scholarly context. You know, admission into colleges. I'm not applying this to the job market, but I would assume it somewhat applies.

QUOTE

Sometimes people subconsciously think ethnic minorities won't fit in at a university campus or a work place, because everybody there is white.

Studies show that Asian-Americans meet these colleges' admissions standards far out of proportion to their 6 percent representation in the U.S. population, and that they often need test scores hundreds of points higher than applicants from other ethnic groups to have an equal chance of admission.

[...] Asian students have higher average SAT scores than any other group, including whites. A study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade examined applicants to top colleges from 1997, when the maximum SAT score was 1600 (today it's 2400). Espenshade found that Asian-Americans needed a 1550 SAT to have an equal chance of getting into an elite college as white students with a 1410 or black students with an 1100.

[...]

Top schools that don't ask about race in admissions process have very high percentages of Asian students. The California Institute of Technology, a private school that chooses not to consider race, is about one-third Asian. (Thirteen percent of California residents have Asian heritage.) The University of California-Berkeley, which is forbidden by state law to consider race in admissions, is more than 40 percent Asian — up from about 20 percent before the law was passed.

[...]

Also, "when Asians are the largest group on campus, I can easily imagine a fund-raiser saying, 'This is jarring to our alumni,'" Hsu says. Noting that most Ivy League schools have roughly the same percentage of Asians, he wonders if "that's the maximum number where diversity is still good, and it's not, 'we're being overwhelmed by the yellow horde.'"

The percentages of college-age Asian-Americans enrolled at most of the other Ivy League schools also fell during this same period, and over the last few years Asian enrollments across these different universities have converged to a very similar level and remained static over time. This raises suspicions of a joint Ivy League policy to restrict Asian-American numbers to a particular percentage.

Meanwhile, the California Institute of Technology follows a highly selective but strictly race-neutral admissions policy, and its enrollment of Asian-Americans has grown almost exactly in line with the growth of the Asian-American population.

The last 20 years have brought a huge rise in the number of Asians winning top academic awards in our high schools or being named National Merit Scholarship semifinalists. It seems quite suspicious that none of trends have been reflected in their increased enrollment at Harvard and other top Ivy League universities.

Long story short: affirmative action and quotas have harmed hard-working minorities, because we're scared of hurting people's feelings by allocating resources efficiently and awarding hard work. Now tell me asians have white privilege. Ultimately, what we may be doing is retarding institutions of higher learning all because liberals want the false illusion of equality so they can feel better over what white their white granddaddy did a century back.

Oh, and I realize how EGOTISTICAL it sounds to say ''YEP, I'M HIGHLY QUALIFIED''. I know, I know, but it isn't as if I didn't stack my grades and scores against the school average. I'm just saying...

Melchior

This is what I don't like about the racial debate, it gets into the ''subliminal racism'' aspect whereby we all become mind readers and KNOW that something is racist because we have a feeling that it is.

Got passed up for something and a white person got chosen instead? Racism.

Indeed.

QUOTE

Systematically, racism no longer exists as it isn't enforced by any legal statures.

No, but it is woven into the societal fabric, which is just as significant.

QUOTE

But can you somehow regulate against that? Against people's thoughts and perceptions?

With strategies like Affirmative Action?

Asians are an entirely different paradigm; they are not met with the same disadvantages as say, Latin- or African-Americans. Allocating resources efficiently? If minorities are at a disadvantage how are resources being allocated efficiently?

E.A.B.

This is what I don't like about the racial debate, it gets into the ''subliminal racism'' aspect whereby we all become mind readers and KNOW that something is racist because we have a feeling that it is.

True, blacks are viewed differently. And when racial attitudes enter areas that affect the lives of entire communities, it is an issue. The issue is that of perception, blacks are perceived differently than other races. Why, that's the question you should answer. It's an issue of perception. The problem is perception.

QUOTE

QUOTE

Got passed up for something and a white person got chosen instead? Racism.

Indeed.

Introducing, Melchior the mind reader

QUOTE

QUOTE

Systematically, racism no longer exists as it isn't enforced by any legal statures.

No, but it is woven into the societal fabric, which is just as significant.

Again, it's only an issue when it enters hiring practices and the job market. I believe that people are allowed to think whatever they wish to think, this shouldn't be against the law. This isn't a problem. Trayvon Martin can call white people crackers, and that fat-ass Southern cooking host can make fun of black people. It's not an issue.

Social perceptions of people can be, and are debated in the public sphere. That's the most efficient way of changing the societal fabric, as you call it.

Gay people? We've gone from ''they gave us AIDS'' to annoying ass shows like Glee. If your argument is that perceptions are the problem, then there is no program that can change perceptions. That's up to society to sort out by itself. That's the most efficient way of solving the issue.

The proposed solution is to give advantages, by law, to minority communities. If the argument isn't because they actually suck and perform worse (which, I always thought, was the main argument), and is actually because we perceive them differently and they NEED help to combat the perception, then a program isn't going to solve the issue.

QUOTE

QUOTE

But can you somehow regulate against that? Against people's thoughts and perceptions?

With strategies like Affirmative Action?

Didn't work. People still think Blacks are criminals and that asians are all mathematical wizards.

Perceptions aren't pulled randomly out of a hat. If you look at the statistics, yes, Blacks tend to commit a lot of crimes and Asians tend to do really well in school. As to WHY that is the case, that is a completely seperate debate.

QUOTE

Asians are an entirely different paradigm

How? That isn't an argument. They aren't white, they don't have supposed ''white privilege'', and they are minorities that usually come to this land (America) poor. How exactly are they different? Present an argument.

QUOTE

they are not met with the same disadvantages as say, Latin- or African-Americans.

The disadvantages of poverty? You can argue that perhaps Black's are different because they've been in America for well over 2 centuries, but if you use that argument you have to use it when comparing Asians to Hispanics as well. Chinese populations have been in America well before some populations of Latin Americans. Like Central Americans. We just got here, yo.

Let's state the damn obvious: generally Asian parents stress school and demand achievement from their children, while Black parents can't control their kids. Asian households have stronger families than Black households. We can argue why that is the case. So we can now claim that this isn't a poverty issue, as much as it is, perhaps, a family issue. Or a community issue. Whatever. So it's a societal perception issue of (some) minority communities based on what people see. Have you been to Chicago? Or Detroit? Third World state's.

QUOTE

Allocating resources efficiently? If minorities are at a disadvantage how are resources being allocated efficiently?

That's an argument against government. Argue that the government isn't spending enough money on lower income schools. That tax money isn't being spent on the poor. Otherwise, students are competing among one another and among minorities, Asians are doing better. Therefore they deserve to be compensated for their efforts. I'm pretty sure there were Jewish quotas before, much like there are Asian quotas today. We're punishing people and communities for having strong family bonds that raise good children. This isn't rational. You can argue that white people don't deserve some of those college positions. You can't argue that Asians and Jews don't. They are also minorities, they don't have ''white privilege''.

If the issue is a family and community issue, there is jack sh*t the government can do to have strong, black families that push for higher education. I saw a subway ad that had black kids and ''Daddy, mommy, if you to marry and stay together I have a higher chance of success'' plastered on it, but beyond that, you can't do anything.

I've always seen bad performance of Black's in schools as more of a community issue on their part, because other minority communities have done better than whites. Which means that its an issue on their part. It doesn't matter if the kids have 5 thousand dollar computers or 1 thousand dollar computers: the immigrant kids from third world nations still perform damn well. My own cousin got accepted into Yale, and was skipped a grade. Which is why I've seen performance as a community issue, as an African AMERICAN (emphasis on American) issue. Every person coming from a poorer country that I've talked to has always had a stronger drive to achieve.

My brother's school is majority black, and at the award ceremony the Indian kids scooped up every single goddamn trophy. They went to the same school as the black kids, this was ''Black turf''.

Again, I'm keeping strictly to school, college, admissions, and performance. The whole ''having a black name=bad'' is a social perception issue of Blacks.

Melchior

True, blacks are viewed differently. And when racial attitudes enter areas that affect the lives of entire communities, it is an issue. The issue is that of perception, blacks are perceived differently than other races. Why, that's the question you should answer. It's an issue of perception. The problem is perception.

The proposed solution is to give advantages, by law, to minority communities. If the argument isn't because they actually suck and perform worse (which, I always thought, was the main argument), and is actually because we perceive them differently and they NEED help to combat the perception, then a program isn't going to solve the issue.

An effective strategy wouldn't be to ignore the current problems and try to make it so they no longer exist in fifty years. While I agree that there should definitely be strategies to alter peoples' perception of race- and to deracialise society in general- there should definitely be a mechanism to correct for the disadvantage faced by minorities. The fact that AA isn't smashing racism and creating an equal, raceless society isn't an argument against it, because that's not what it's supposed to do, and nobody expects it to do that. It's just supposed to make it easier for minorities to find jobs and get into university. It's not al all-encompassing anti-racism strategy.

QUOTE

Didn't work. People still think Blacks are criminals and that asians are all mathematical wizards.

I have literally no idea where you got the idea that AA was supposed to combat stereotypes.

QUOTE

How? That isn't an argument. They aren't white, they don't have supposed ''white privilege'', and they are minorities that usually come to this land (America) poor. How exactly are they different? Present an argument.

Okay, first of all, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese etc. don't "come to America poor." Second of all, it's a different paradigm because their race doesn't work against them. It would to some extent in the job market because they might be deemed less apt at fitting in, but not in academic settings. I'm not sure why you require an argument at any rate, since you've already conceded that African-Americans are viewed as less capable. Wasn't your argument that white privilege doesn't exist because Asians can get into college?

Further, white privilege isn't only about getting into uni and I'm not sure why you think it is. Asians are culturally locked out, they aren't well represented in all areas of society, they aren't often surrounded by members of their own race, they're stereotyped. I don't think you understand what white privilege is. Here's some reading for you.

QUOTE

f you use that argument you have to use it when comparing Asians to Hispanics as well.

I fail to see why. Different paradigms. They're from different parts of the world, are met with different perceptions, have different cultures and most importantly: they leave their countries under different circumstances.

QUOTE

Let's state the damn obvious: generally Asian parents stress school and demand achievement from their children, while Black parents can't control their kids. Asian households have stronger families than Black households. We can argue why that is the case. So we can now claim that this isn't a poverty issue, as much as it is, perhaps, a family issue. Or a community issue. Whatever. So it's a societal perception issue of (some) minority communities based on what people see. Have you been to Chicago? Or Detroit? Third World state's.

It's not an issue of poverty. Refer to the above: having a black name is enough to make so much as getting an interview 50% harder. Jermaine Jones and Shaniqua Jackson could be from wealthy families, they are still met with disadvantage. Even if it were an issue of poverty, I fail to see your point.

The rest of your post is somewhat garbled, lacks context, ignores what you've already conceded and doesn't appear to be in response to anything I've written.

To Add: A guy comes in dressed neatly: Wants the store Manager to sign his Notice of Attempted employment action so he can collect his unemployment check. Says he won't fill out an application because the job is beneath him, but insists the Manager must sign the form that he applied for a job.

To Add: A guy comes in dressed neatly: Wants the store Manager to sign his Notice of Attempted employment action so he can collect his unemployment check. Says he won't fill out an application because the job is beneath him, but insists the Manager must sign the form that he applied for a job.

I fail to see how any of this could be construed as you making an argument. You don't even mention Affirmative Action.

Melchior

Why do we have to target people by race though? Why can't we have affirmative action based on socioeconomic need? In that case you are still going to be assisting the disproportionately poor minorities but also you will assist those who are plain old white folks and have the same problems.

Because it's not about money. It has nothing to do with "poor minorities" it's about minorities in general. See my above post- it's literally 50% harder to get an interview if you sound African-American. If that rich, black friend you mentioned's race can be determined by his name or by talking to him on the phone, then he's much less likely to get an interview- let alone be hired- then your poor white friend.

True, blacks are viewed differently. And when racial attitudes enter areas that affect the lives of entire communities, it is an issue. The issue is that of perception, blacks are perceived differently than other races. Why, that's the question you should answer. It's an issue of perception. The problem is perception.

That AA does nothing to combat the actual problem. It's like solving a water leak by not tightening the screws, but by throwing three rolls of paper towels on the floor.

QUOTE

QUOTE

Introducing, Melchior the mind reader

More like "Melchior, interpreter of relevant data and findings."

Can you seriously stand there and tell me that there is no possible way that someone went white rather than black in a situation and it was all based on pure hatred of Blacks? The comment was in relation to 'subliminal racism' and how its based on interpretation of events.

A hypothetical: A black man might feel like the clerk is being a racist for following him throughout the store, but the clerk isn't doing so because of a hatred of Black people, he's doing it because he got robbed over ten times by black thugs in the past 6 months. Can you really call it racism? I call it common sense.

QUOTE

While I agree that there should definitely be strategies to alter peoples' perception of race- and to deracialise society in general- there should definitely be a mechanism to correct for the disadvantage faced by minorities.

Well, yes and no. The reason Blacks are treated differently is because people perceive them differently, as less. They have all these negative stereotypes, and that is at the heart of their troubles in employment. And I don't think there is any real thing you can do to combat that short of indoctrination and...hypnosis. I've always seem the problem as self-rectifying.

As for programs to correct for disadvantages, I can meet you half-way here. If education is the great equalizer, then I can get behind financial aid. But when you bring in the whole ''well white people have it pretty good so lets not give them as much financial aid'' that's when you lose me. I have a problem with discriminating based on race to equalize society by destroying the futures of several people based on their skin tone. It's inherently racist.

QUOTE

The fact that AA isn't smashing racism and creating an equal, raceless society isn't an argument against it, because that's not what it's supposed to do, and nobody expects it to do that. It's just supposed to make it easier for minorities to find jobs and get into university. It's not al all-encompassing anti-racism strategy.

Again, keeping with my college focus, minorities have always been able to get into college. The problem has always been finances. I'd prefer a financial aid overhaul rather than quotas, which, as I said earlier, are either needed because:

A.Minorities are inherently inferior and we need to have standards lowered for themB.Universities actively stop non-whites from entering campuses because they hate all minorities (or specific minorities, either way works)C.Minorities go to sh*ttier schools, so they will obviously not do as well

I've touched upon C before, but I'm not buying A or B. As I've said before, you allocate resources terribly if you pass over a viable candidate because you need to fill in a quota, and I don't buy that the quota is filled in by retards. It's filled in by capable people, in which case the quota is applied because of B, and I don't buy it.

QUOTE

QUOTE

Didn't work. People still think Blacks are criminals and that asians are all mathematical wizards.

I have literally no idea where you got the idea that AA was supposed to combat stereotypes.

QUOTE (you)

Yes, perception of certain minorities is what causes the disadvantage. AA seeks to correct this

If we can agree that blacks don't get hired because people perceive them as lesser beings, then you aren't battling the perception. Perceptions manifest as stereotypes...err, are stereotypes.

Confession time: I really hate the notion of white privilege. Mainly because it partially comes from critical race theory, which is narrative based. And that aspect means it isn't empirical. Which leads me into my kinda iffy nature with sociology, as it tries to study and set facts to something as dynamic as the human population. It isn't a science in the same vein as biology or physics, where there are observable, repeatable, facts and figures. It tries to observe human society and has to change the nature of relationships based on the context (American vs European), and is partially narrative based which means its subject to interpretation. I'll quote someone here: ''Social scientists are especially dangerous when they insist—and convince others—that they have discovered absolute truths about humanity, truths that tell us what we are and even what we should be. Hence social scientists—more than any other scientists—should be humble, or at least modest, in making claims.'' There's a reason why social sciences receive less federal funding.

TL;DR I don't buy into white privilege as strongly as others, and don't really follow the social sciences more elaborate theories beyond ''Black people have it bad'' and other basic facts. While I agree that being born white generally means better chances at A, B, and C, I also believe that commercials feature white people because, if I'm not mistaken, America is majority white and seeing other whites on a hallmark card isn't a privilege inherent in the race as it is inherent in the majority population. That list has some rather silly bullet points, and we could hammer each others heads out arguing over it.

QUOTE

QUOTE

f you use that argument you have to use it when comparing Asians to Hispanics as well.

I fail to see why. Different paradigms. They're from different parts of the world, are met with different perceptions, have different cultures and most importantly: they leave their countries under different circumstances.

I can agree. So let's get one thing straight, then: affirmative action isn't for all minorities, it's only for specific minorities. Minorities aren't inherently at a disadvantage, as it varies from group to group. Jews are minorities, but I'd be hard-pressed to call them disadvantaged, or that they have all the white privilege (god I hate using that word) in the world. So it isn't necessarily a program for all minorities, only for some minorities, as not all minorities are screwed over.

QUOTE

QUOTE

Let's state the damn obvious: generally Asian parents stress school and demand achievement from their children, while Black parents can't control their kids. Asian households have stronger families than Black households. We can argue why that is the case. So we can now claim that this isn't a poverty issue, as much as it is, perhaps, a family issue. Or a community issue. Whatever. So it's a societal perception issue of (some) minority communities based on what people see. Have you been to Chicago? Or Detroit? Third World state's.

It's not an issue of poverty. Refer to the above: having a black name is enough to make so much as getting an interview 50% harder. Jermaine Jones and Shaniqua Jackson could be from wealthy families, they are still met with disadvantage. Even if it were an issue of poverty, I fail to see your point.

The point is that people view Blacks negatively because of the culture of poverty. Statistically, Blacks commit a high amount of crimes and are on welfare more-so than any other race based on their percentage of the population. We can argue whether disparaging views of welfare are warranted given that the government subsidizes other groups, but the point is that people view blacks negatively not because they naturally dislike their skin pigmentation, but because they hate the culture of poverty.

Let's bring it back: if the issue Blacks have always dealt with is perception (''I'm not gonna hire Shaniqua''), then I posit that the perception is all based on views of the ghetto. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

QUOTE

The rest of your post is somewhat garbled, lacks context, ignores what you've already conceded and doesn't appear to be in response to anything I've written.

th-thanks. I re-read it, don't get what you're talking about, but this quote train has got to stop somewhere.

and while I'm not arguing against the study you showed, I will say this: don't rely too strongly on it. This is the problem with social sciences: interpretation, validity, and reliability. Don't throw the 50 percent number around so much, that was a mid-western study. I never doubt studies, but I sure as hell require a wealth of studies to be able to reach a particular conclusion in the social sciences. It's why they require ass loads of citations and references to previous studies.

Melchior

I'm having a great deal of trouble working out exactly what it is you want to say. All I can ascertain, is that you don't think AA is effective in the long term, as the crux of your argument. Well, first off, it is a long-term strategy because it facilitates integration, and thus, deracialisation, at least in certain areas of society. Second of all, we need to give minorities more opportunity, right now, on top of what ever else we might decide to do to deracialise society.

Your ranting about social sciences doesn't really have much bearing on our discussion, but I'l just say that there's a difference between you not understanding something, and you "not buying into it."

E.A.B.

It's not hard to figure out, but I guess I'm not divulging or presenting my viewpoint well enough, so whatever.

And I know my social sciences, I double majored in two areas within the field. Economics and Political Science, and while you can't really say one social science is like the other, they're still classified under the same label and borrow strategies. A LOT of strategies.

Sociology and the ''white privilege'' narrative relies on just that, a narrative and a particular interpretation. I'm telling you that social science theories like ''white privilege'' aren't as valid as hard science theories like gravity. Because it's all theoretics that can be argued and rely on interpretation rather than mere observation.

Triple Vacuum Seal

I guess I'll throw in my two cents. The key issue with the affirmative action debate is the lack of consensus. If you ask an ethnic minority about affirmative action, they may say it's a policy that levels the playing field. If you ask someone in the ethnic majority, they may tell you that it's simply giving a position to somebody because they're a minority. AA is more or less a short term half measure to combat institutional racism. But it's still a necessary step in a long process. Ethnic minorities need the political life support that AA policies provide in order to mitigate their ethnic disadvantages in the meantime. Underrepresented peoples can't just sit tight for another few hundred years and wait for our white male-dominate society to get it right.

Racism prevails because minorities have neither the influence with nor access to the norm-setting middle class whites. The lack of employment opportunity upholds this social barrier. From my personal observation in America, many of the middle and upper class whites that do socialize with minorities only interact with them within the protocol of a white American culture to begin with. We can't expect middle and upper class whites to relate to those they hardly socialize with. I believe better job opportunities can bring minorities into positions of social influence; thus dissolving the racist attitudes against them.

@E.A.B. How is following a black person in a store because of being been robbed by blacks not racist? Furthermore, how is it common sense? You are incorrectly treating racism and hatred as interchangeable attitudes. Much of racism in modern times is benign on a personal level, but socially consequential nonetheless.

As for the financial headwinds that prevent getting into college...I don't think throwing money at the problem on the back end would do much good for anyone. By the 'back end' I mean financial aid to poor folks who have the performance and work ethic to get into a university, but lack the funds. Most people in this situation (in America at least) have adequate access to funds through an array of loans and scholarships if they take the time to apply. The financial headwinds that prevent people from getting into to college are presented long before a child even sees college as an option. Growing up in an economically under-serviced environment significantly decreases one's chances of going to college. If a child lives in an under-serviced environment because his/her parents were passed over for a job opportunity because of the prevailing racist attitudes against them, then the child has essentially inherited that financial disadvantage along with their skin color. This issue comes full circle to employment opportunity; the main catalyst for financial security and social equality. That is why employment is the key focus of AA policy. Better minority employment opportunities = more money, less crime, more access to education, and social equality.